Marco de Wit February 4, 2021
Jaa artikkeli
Share on VK
VK
Tweet about this on Twitter
Twitter
Share on Facebook
Facebook

 

 

 

How honest are the leading Jewish libertarians? Have Jewish interests been more important for them than liberty?

 

 

 

It is relatively easy to find the answer. All you need is to look at the writings of these leading Jewish libertarians and check whether they have denied or ignored the four important liberty related topics: Cuckoo nationalism, The Fatal Embrace, The Culture of Critique and U$Srael.  In short, the old Cuckoo Story.

 

Click the picture

 

Applying this litmus test to the five most prominent libertarian Jews gives the following preliminary results:

 

 

Click the picture

 

 

Naturally these preliminary results must be verified by studying their writings in more detail. Let us first study the most famous and powerful libertarian of them all: Milton Friedman.

 

Friedman has already been thoroughly analysed by applying MacDonald’s criteria and found to be an activist Jewish partisan. But was he an aggressive or passive-aggressive Jewish partisan? Luckily checking his writings is relatively easy. Many of his books are not online but those deal with technical economics where one would hardly mention Jews anyway. Almost all his more political books and articles can be found online. These practically never mention the Jews except when he mentions Israel on a general level. As a Zionist he believed in nations but avoided going into details. He also tried to avoid mentioning the Jewish Fatal Embrace despite the fact that at its center was Jewish banking.

 

Friedman certainly knew that Jews had for centuries bought monopoly and cartel privileges from rulers. Still he passive-aggressively tried to hide this crucial fact in his famous article Capitalism and the Jews. He flat out denied the obvious fact that for centuries Jews had been state privileged slave traders, tax-farmers, monopolists and banking cartellists. Friedman:

To summarize: Except for the sporadic protection of individual monarchs to whom they were useful, Jews have seldom benefited from governmental intervention on their behalf. 

 

Link to FEE.org

 

Friedman also never mentioned how Jews created and financed communism and many revolutions. However, he did note how Jews have often been pushing socialism on an ideological level. Friedman tried to persuade Jews that (relatively) free market was more beneficial for Jews than socialism. It was all about what was good for the Jews.

My aim is rather to examine a particular case of paradox–the attitude of Jews toward capitalism. Two propositions can be readily demonstrated: first, the Jews owe an enormous debt to free enterprise and competitive capitalism; second, for at least the past century the Jews have been consistently opposed to capitalism and have done much on an ideological level to undermine it. How can these propositions be reconciled? (Capitalism and the Jews)

 

Friedman could not answer his own question because he had to cover up the Jewish Fatal Embrace of the state. He would not even admit that many Jews promoted communism because they wanted to topple the Tsar and rule Russia. He would not reveal how Jews became a hostile elite in the Soviet Union and started persecuting Russians. Pointing that out might have revealed disturbing parallels to the situation in America.

 

Friedman not only tried to cover up the Jewish Fatal Embrace but also the Jewish Culture of Critique. However, this time he was not lying as aggressively. He wanted to show that he cared for America. For example, he was somewhat critical of free immigration.

Immigration is a particularly difficult subject. There is no doubt that free and open immigration is the right policy in a libertarian state, but in a welfare state it is a different story: the supply of immigrants will become infinite. Your proposal that someone only be able to come for employment is a good one but it would not solve the problem completely. The real hitch is in denying social benefits to the immigrants who are here. That is very hard to do, much harder than you would think as we have found out in California. But nonetheless, we clearly want to move in the direction that you are talking about so this is a question of nitpicking, not of serious objection. (OpenBorders)

 

Friedman was opposed to free immigration but only under a welfare state. He considered the idea of totally opening American borders under present circumstances lunatic and highly dangerous. But at the same time he would not point out that Jewish organizations are all the time trying to open up the borders. Similarly he never critically pointed out the obvious fact that for over a hundred years the Culture of Critique has been financed and propagated by Jews. He did not even personally oppose abortion or gay marriage.

Regarding gay marriage, “I do not believe there should be any discrimination against gays. . . . The only question is whether th[e] laws should have a special category for a family unit whose primary objective is childrearing.”13 On abortion, he believes that it should be legal, but, similar to his position on stem cell research, that government should not pay for abortions. (Alan Ebenstein. Milton Friedman: Biography. 2007. p. 228)

 

 

Naturally Friedman never proposed that Israel should have free immigration or modernist values. Israel can have a nation state but not Americans and Europeans. Again Friedman was trying to protect Jewish interest by being a passive-aggressive partisan Jew.

 

Friedman also tried his best to cover up the fact that Jews now dominate the world with U$Srael. This despite the fact that in many ways he was the father of U$Srael and the present globalist New World Order. But he had to cover all this up by corrupting history with philosemitism and science with empiricist scientism. Friedman saw society as a machine to be directed by mathematical savvy scientists for the good of the Jews. The Nobelist economist Friedrich von Hayek has noted how Friedman’s obsession with data and statistics had nothing to do with economic theory and understanding but control.

Friedman is an arch-positivist who believes nothing must enter scientific argument except what is empirically proven. My argument is that we know so much detail about economics, our task is to put our knowledge in order. We hardly need any new information. Our great difficulty is digesting what we already know. We don’t get much wiser by statistical information except in gaining information about the specific situation at the moment. But theoretically I don’t think statistical studies get us anywhere. (Alan Ebenstein. Milton Friedman: Biography. 2007. p. 215)

 

Friedman understood full well that Israel and the Jews are the greatest beneficiaries of the Fed run cartel economy, petrodollar system and U$Srael. However, he also realized excessive money/dollar pringing was turning U$Srael led globalist NWO ever more into a house of cards that could collapse. This is why the Jews needed a homeland where they could flee if the possible economic collapse created a global wave of anti-Semitism. No wonder that Friedman was an extremist Likudnik Zionist who wanted Israel to expand and occupy not only the whole of Palestine but parts of Lebanon, Syria and Egypt.

 

Despite being a fanatical Zionist Friedman was still not an aggressive Jewish activist partisan. He even opposed the 1991 Gulf War. Why? Because he realised that too imperialist foreign policy would not only lead to blow-back but gradually lead to socialism and a total police state which could in the long run be bad for the Jews.

Although he [Friedman] made few references to noneconomic international events, they were typically in a strongly anticommunist direction. For example, he wrote in an April 3, 1961, letter to Arthur Seldon of the Institute of Economic Affairs, regarding events in Laos (where a Communist takeover seemed imminent): “I am very much distressed at the moment by the situation in foreign affairs. Britain and the U.S. seem to be prepared to sell yet another country down the road.”3 …

In recent years Milton Friedman had become more isolationist or, at least, less supportive of U.S. military action around the world. He had always emphasized waste in defense spending and the danger to political freedom posed by militarism. He opposed the Gulf war in 1991. He thought that, although the United States should not have militarily intervened in Iraq in 2003, having done so it should see this involvement through to satisfactory completion. (Alan Ebenstein. Milton Friedman: Biography. 2007. p. 230)

 

Friedman believed in “moderate” imperialist globalism where U$Srael rules and keeps the world market relatively free and peaceful. And defends Israel by keeping the “anti-Semities” in check, of course. This can be seen in a 2005 interview:

Nathan Gardels: You’ve seen a lot in your long life and thought about the big issues. What is on your mind these days?

Friedman: The big issue is whether the United States will succeed in its venture of reshaping the Middle East. It is not clear to me that using military force is the way to do it. We should not have gone into Iraq. But we have. At the moment, the most pressing issue, therefore, is to make sure that effort is completed in a satisfactory way. There is no doubt that America’s stature in the world—in large part due to the attraction and promotion of our liberal freedoms—has been eroded as a result of Iraq. However, if Iraq emerges in the end as a self-governing country that is not a threat to anybody, that will have a favorable effect on the Middle East in general. The end result then would be to increase the prestige of the U.S. But that is not the case now. The effect so far has been the other way. (Alan Ebenstein. Milton Friedman: Biography. 2007. p. 243. Emphasis added.)

 

Why should America reshape the Middle East? For the good of Israel and the Jews, of course.

 

But why no invasion or even criticism of Saudi Arabia? Why not also reshape the most Islamist part the Middle East, Saudi Arabia? Because the Saudis are old allies of the Jews. Together they run the petrodollar system with America. Saudis also help Jews to destroy powerful “anti-Semite” secular Arab states like Irak, Syria. Yemen and Libya with extreme Islamism. Saudis even help to attack Iran and destabilize Russia in Caucasus and China in Xinjiang. Islamist Saudis are an integral part of U$Srael both economically and militarily. Thus even Friedman has hardly ever criticized the extreme Islamist theocracy.

 

 

 

U$Srael protects the Jewish money machine but bailing out Israel and financing the U$Srael war-machine is very expensive. Not to worry. Friedman had that covered too. Just expand the money (dollar) supply exponentially. Friedman had a big role in teaching the Fed how to do this in practice. Friedman’s biographer Alan Ebenstein explains:

Ben Bernanke, appointed chairman of the Federal Reserve Board in 2005, is a great admirer of Friedman. According to Bernanke, “One can hardly overstate the influence of Friedman’s monetary framework on contemporary monetary theory and practice. He identified the key empirical facts and he provided us with broad policy recommendations,” and “Friedman’s monetary framework has been so influential that, in its broad outlines . . . , it has nearly become identical with modern monetary theory and practice.”22

According to Alan Greenspan, Bernanke’s predecessor, “There are very few people over the generations who have ideas that are sufficiently original to materially alter the direction of civilization. Milton is one of these very few people.”23  (Alan Ebenstein. Milton Friedman: Biography. 2007. p. 238. Emphasis added.)

 

This is not to say that Friedman was a diabolical supremacist liar who set out to subjugate Gentiles for the good of the Jews. His activities probably also involved “Light unto nations” style self-deception. He might have believed that Jewish dominance of the economy and society were also good for the Gentiles at least in the long run. For example, he certainly realized that it was in the interest of Diaspora Jews to support (relatively) free trade and thus stop high tariffs and economic warfare between nation states. Therefore it was probably easy for Friedman to explain to himself why Jews should be in charge of the world economy. He might even have explained to himself that Jewish world domination with U$Srael is just temporary. After dangerous anti-Semites have been crushed and Greater Israel secured world can finally enter into libertarian peace and prosperity.

 

 

Conclusion

Friedman accepted nationalism but with a double standard. He also admitted that Jews had a big role in socialism but ignored the connection to the Fatal Embrace. He also admitted some aspects of the Jewish Culture of Critique but again hid its worst parts. He helped to create U$Srael but tried to make Jewish rule more intelligent and “moderate” because he feared a Gentile backlash. Friedman was not a total liar and a fraud. He was a passive-aggressive Jewish partisan.

 

To be continued with Part II. Honesty Litmus Test: Ayn Rand

 

 

 

 

 

Jaa artikkeli
Share on VK
VK
Tweet about this on Twitter
Twitter
Share on Facebook
Facebook

10 thoughts on “Honesty Litmus Test: Milton Friedman

  1. Israel should have never been noted as a state. Its a state created by many criminal jewish terrorists and you can see the result now. Terrorists needed a physical country with army to defend when there will eventually be a backlash. Open borders to everywhere else, except to Israel. They wanted a physical country where to escape when everybody else would have been race mixed and lost their identities. If you would think that a fanatical, extremist jew could ever be good for gentiles, you would have to be a lunatic.

  2. I have to admit that these people have been very clever. Satanically clever. Western world must destroy Israel and never allow it again.

  3. If you start to genocide, massacre and totally ruin everbodys lives, you need to take the heat that comes with it as the result. Nobody massacres and exterminates without coinciquences.

Leave a Reply to 🇬🇧February 4th 2021 "A British woman questioning the Covid-19 crisis in the UK has been banned from visiting any hospital" Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked*